Atheists and Agnostics don't believe in God but want spread their nothing word

a reply to: Annee
It is something which seems to need explanation time after time here on ATS.
I almost think that theists are trying to hijack the word "atheist" and twist it into something that describes "one who holds a belief that there are
no gods". I hold no belief in any gods but equally I hold no belief that there are none, just that I've seen nothing in my life to convince me to
believe.
I am quite proud of my rational agnostic atheist label.
...but it gets tiresome when rabid Christians use the word to describe anti-theists, or militant atheists/etc, as while they may well be atheist (not
holding a belief in gods), they require added value in their descriptive term as you stated very well earlier.

ATS believers, when will you accept it? Atheism is not a belief system in itself, it is lack of belief (in gods) nothing more, nothing
less.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Annee
It is something which seems to need explanation time after time here on ATS.
I almost think that theists are trying to hijack the word "atheist" and twist it into something that describes "one who holds a belief that there
are no gods". I hold no belief in any gods but equally I hold no belief that there are none, just that I've seen nothing in my life to convince me
to believe.
I am quite proud of my rational agnostic atheist label.
...but it gets tiresome when rabid Christians use the word to describe anti-theists, or militant atheists/etc, as while they may well be atheist (not
holding a belief in gods), they require added value in their descriptive term as you stated very well earlier.

ATS believers, when will you accept it? Atheism is not a belief system in itself, it is lack of belief (in gods) nothing more, nothing
less.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Prezbo369
Letting people know that they are not alone is not about this thread though. This one is about those who don't have a belief, right?

Did you read the OP? he was asking why there were atheists in an airport talking in public about their lack of belief in gods.

One of the reasons as to why they were doing that, was to let other atheists that they are not alone and that other people also lack a belief in
gods.

And I corrected you when it seemed like you were saying that the only reason to do such a thing is to receive some form of validation from others.

Letting people know that their is a God is the other side of the coin. Since we are here, I will tell you a little secret. Atheist belief takes
MORE faith than a belief in God.
A belief in God has tons of history, and people showing that it is true. (Obviously not to the satisfaction of non believers), but the fact that
atheist belief takes more faith than believing in God does, is pretty obvious.

Atheists like me believe that theists have not met the burden of proof with their claims for gods.

Faith is believing things for no good reason, people merely claiming it is true and a 2000 year old book of stories about stories, are not good
reasons.

I am quite proud of my rational agnostic atheist label.
...but it gets tiresome when rabid Christians use the word to describe anti-theists, or militant atheists/etc, as while they may well be atheist (not
holding a belief in gods), they require added value in their descriptive term as you stated very well earlier.

I'm fine with mine, as well.

'Rabid' is right.

Fact is, we don't know.
Agnostic = Don't know.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know, and I don't want to claim I know, because I don't know, and I want everyone else to know that even though they might
or might not know what I don't claim to know, I respect their beliefs anyway. Even if they don't know that they don't know, and since they don't know
that this 'not knowing' is the same for everyone. They are not alone.

Is it possible for Atheists and Agnostics to paint masterpieces? ha ha ha

Culturally bankrupt.

That is a HUGE piece of ignorance there. First off, it is an assumption that all artists are religious by default (strange, because I play the
mandolin and I'm not religious). Second off, it assumes that atheists can't create things.

He seems like a nice guy. But why atheism? Why not Buddhism, or Brahmanism, or Jediism, or something like Annee's spiritual atheism?

Maybe he grew up hearing his former friends preach against atheism all the time. Maybe they pushed him to it. Maybe his education and experience only
prepared him for a single binary choice, which, due to his trauma, was made for him by his emotions.

Of course I don't know the guy. So I can't say. I'm just thinking out loud.

Exactly, theist or atheist.
But to be a theist takes belief in a god, while the basic requirement for an atheist label is to lack such a belief.
It is pitiful to constantly see theists attempting to twist the atheist label into "one who believes there are no gods".

I challenge anyone to claim that they dont place there faith or offer up a little prayer to some form of deity before departing on any associated
plane journey, even if its only to the machine god that is the aircraft. Especially so these days.

Nope. Don't do that! Pointless!
Atheists tend not to fear death as believers do! maybe because they know that the end is the end!

How do "they know" such a thing!?!

How can you claim such as the above and say it's not a belief system?

Hypo...
Crisy...

Because they not blind minded (stupid)!

When you don't believe in any religion and death is the end thus nothing then there is nothing to believe in thus no belief system exists, only
nothing!!!

So their belief is that nothing awaits...

How is your argument designed to convince people it's not a belief system!?!

Who's "stupid"!?!

Atheist means one thing and one thing only: LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD/DEITY.

That's it. That is the only meaning of atheist.

There is nothing that says an atheist can't have a belief ---- as long as that belief does not include a God.

Each individual atheist has their own philosophy. There is no single thought "dogma".

Sorry I'm late to the party. I've always found this explanation to be a cop out. I think atheists like to cling to this definition because they feel
it gives them the high ground in these arguments. It's ultimately just arguing semantics, but in this case such semantics matter.

The reason I believe this definition is incorrect, is because Atheists do indeed hold a belief. The concept of God or the afterlife can neither
be proved or disproved. Therefore regardless of which side of the fence you are on, you have a belief about those concepts one way or the
other. Saying you don't believe in God is still a belief because you can't prove it.

Agnosticism seems like the most logical approach for someone to take that hasn't experienced personal proof either way.

But on the topic of the OP, there is definitely a movement within the atheist community to proselytize their beliefs. Some have even gone so
far as to construct "Atheist Churches", which seems rather absurd to me.

Evangelical Atheist: An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing
everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of).

When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is
no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just don't talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around
them as their prerogative.

Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human
society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists,
often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, some of the brightest minds in the English-speaking world right now argue that religion is the problem.

And we know they’re the brightest minds because they keep telling us they are.

The New Atheists are positively evangelical. They want to make a convert out of you, although if you’re a “dyed-in-the-wool faith-head”
they’ll settle for peppering you with insults and sarcasm instead.

What is most worrying is that the New Atheists seem to gain the most followers precisely among the most ambitious and intelligent young people—the
people who will be actively shaping government policy in the years to come.

Attracted by the intellectual rebelliousness of the movement, young people fall for its insidious message: join us and you can be one of the smart
people.

In the 1800s, Karl Marx and other thinkers systematized this anti-religious hostility. When the followers of Marx gained power in Russia, they were
even more ruthless than the French revolutionaries in their suppression of religion.

Similar horrors followed dogmatic Communism wherever it came to power. But most of the English-speaking world was spared this excessive institutional
atheism. The United States, in particular, has always zealously guarded the freedom of anyone to practice any religion that does not seriously
interfere with public order.

That’s why we’re so surprised and baffled by what we call the New Atheism. For the first time in our relatively tranquil history, we’re facing a
determined attempt not just to keep organized religion out of government (which most religious Americans agree is a good idea), but to suppress
religion completely.

What we call the “New Atheism” is a bit different than its predecessor. It’s more aggressive, and it has more power.

The leaders of the sect are well placed in the academic world, and they have a strong determination to mold government policy. And you wouldn’t
like the government if the New Atheists molded its policy. Richard Dawkins has asserted that teaching your religion to your child is a form of child
abuse and should be criminalized. Other New Atheists have argued that churches should have to post a sign reading “for entertainment purposes
only,” since after all they’re no less a fraud than telephone psychics.

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government
actively hostile to religion. The evangelical atheists assume that religion must inevitably breed mindless fanaticism. Countering that image means
not just answering the atheists’ arguments against God, but also correcting their false impressions of religion.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.